N
netmilsmom
Guest
David Zampino:
We are in full agreement.
How tacky can you get with that t-shirt?
We are in full agreement.
- Status
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Prometheum_x said:
It is objectively present – after all if you have a secret intention of expressing something but you and only you are aware of its method of expression, then it’s not really an expression is it? Expression entails some kind of communication. And for communication to occur it must happen in an objective context – if you use a language you and only you understand it would be meaningless and not really a language at all.
Of course they have inherent meaning, but the meaning can be inherent in a number of ways:
- Due to the intrinsic constitution of the object.
- Due to custom which can vary by place and time.
We can apprehend the meaning by studing aethestics in university. We can apprehend the meaning that is given to it by custom by just being aware of the customs.
A legitimate custom would be one that does not do violence to the meaning that is intrinsic to it. As long as that is the cae, any and all variation in custom is fine.
C
CarolAnnSFO
Guest
This can get pretty tricky. Consider these examples:
Which is more feminine?
- A pair of ladies’ slacks made from purple fabric with a pink and green all-over flower print
- A skirt made of charcoal grey chalk stripe worsted wool (a traditional mens’ suiting fabric)
Which is the more feminine and dressy garment, a t-shirt or a blouse?
Think of a flower-printed dressy ladies’ t-shirt trimmed with lace at the sleeves and neckline, or a blouse that is made to look exactly like the shirts that men wear with their suits. In the latter case, I think the t-shirt is more feminine (and dressy).
It’s not always a cut and dried matter.
(By the way, I agree about the “underpants” t-shirt – I don’t think that should be worn anywhere in public, and especially not in church).
Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
I’ve never seen an “aesthetics” course, but I would assume it would be a humanities/philosophy class. Regardless, without taking such a class, where does the information of an aesthetics class come from?
Basically, I am trying to discover the basic principles from which can be foundall inherent meaning contained in clothing.
Are these properties discovered scientifically, based on their physical properties? Or, are they rooted in divine revelation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium? Or, are they derived from philosophical principles? Or is there something else?
We can’t speak of objectivity if it isn’t derived from objective principles. In addition, there will be harmony between those 3 categories mentioned above, regardless of which one is the source of our knowledge.
M
mercygate
Guest
Bingo. Consider that a nun’s habit (tunic, scapular) is exactly the same as a monk’s habit only with the addition of whatever headgear might be involved. Hm. Which is more feminine?
S
sententia
Guest
I think a big point here between women’s and men’s clothing would be the purpose of wearing said clothes.
It may be that a woman, wearing mens clothing so that she may be trying to be viewed as a man is quite different than a women wearing what we would call ‘men’s clothing’ as a part of a uniform for a job, or bcause they facilitate the work the woman is doing.
I work with sheep, cattle, things of that nature. I wear my nice warm brown carhearts in the winter, overall and coat, but I don’t do it to “be like the men,” I wean those because it is the warmest outfit I know of in which I can still do the work I need to do.
Anyway, thought I’d throw that out there.
It may be that a woman, wearing mens clothing so that she may be trying to be viewed as a man is quite different than a women wearing what we would call ‘men’s clothing’ as a part of a uniform for a job, or bcause they facilitate the work the woman is doing.
I work with sheep, cattle, things of that nature. I wear my nice warm brown carhearts in the winter, overall and coat, but I don’t do it to “be like the men,” I wean those because it is the warmest outfit I know of in which I can still do the work I need to do.
Anyway, thought I’d throw that out there.
C
CarolAnnSFO
Guest
Good point. I really can’t see wearing a skirt or dress to crack-seal the driveway, dry-grout the patio, or paint the front porch.
But even when not doing these tasks, there is a big difference between ladies’ slacks and shirts and mens’ clothing. I am now wearing a pair of slacks and a dressy t-shirt, and I don’t think anyone would mistake my clothing for mens’ clothing. The cut, colors, patterns, style, and fabrics are simply not the same as those used for mens’ apparel.
**Crazy Internet Junkies Society
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Well those who have not studied it – whether in school or by self-teaching – should just do the humble thing and rely on the judgment of those who have, which would ideally include all priests. I think someone mentioned Cardinal Siri – there may have been a link.
These aren’t mutually exclusive categories. The magisterium has maintained and very recently too that it has the authority not only to teach of divine revelation but also to teach of philosophy and the natural law as both philosophy and the natural law pertain to things which are necessary for the full living of the Christian life.
O I see you recognize that the categories are not mutually exclusive.
Here will be some principles that my meager mind and knowledge have to offer – some related to custom and some related to intrinsic properties apart from custom:
- It is not something that is customarily worn by the opposite sex.
- It is not something that people customarily wear to express a denial of the diversity of sex and the complementarity of the sexes. (So wearing a suite and tie would fall into this category, I would say as would wearing a shirt that says “There is no difference between men and women”)
- The form – shape, etc. – of the clothing has a relationship of fittingness with the female sex.
We say that it was fitting for Mary to have been raised to an immaculate state at her creation. We say it was fitting for the Mother of God to have been a virgin.
Wearing neon clothing to a funeral Mass would not be fitting – not just because of custom, but also because the intrinsic nature of neon clothing makes it unfitting for a solemn occasion such as a funeral Mass.
Likewise certain kinds of clothing may be fitting for men but not fitting for women. The fact that I am unable to present this principle in a mathematesque manner does not negate it. After all, men are able to distinguish between a man’s face versus a woman’s face – even very young children are able to do this – yet we are not able at present to present this distinction in a mathematesque manner. So the inability to present it mathematically, does not make the distinction or principle any less true or any less useful and applicable.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I was not replying to Cardinal Sin, I was replying to the poster who claimed womens clothing in St. Thomas’ day (or in St. Paul’s day) consisted of skirts and dresses, and pointing out that skirts and dresses were not worn by women in those eras.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I’ve waited to make comment on this, but after reading everything here, and reading the link from the original poster, here are my thoughts:
1.) The arguments in the OP’s link are all over the map. For example, it quotes Christ as saying things in Deuterotomy. Well, the Trinity IS being three persons in one God and all, but wouldn’t that be attributed to God the Father aka Yahweh?
2.) Further, wouldn’t that be attributed to the times in which Deut. took place?
3.) I don’t like the idea at the end of the article from the link to take a modesty pledge and be assured of salvation. That’s not where the Church teaches salvation stems, pledges to a certain form of modesty.
Otherwise, my opinion would run toward Carol’s.
1.) The arguments in the OP’s link are all over the map. For example, it quotes Christ as saying things in Deuterotomy. Well, the Trinity IS being three persons in one God and all, but wouldn’t that be attributed to God the Father aka Yahweh?
2.) Further, wouldn’t that be attributed to the times in which Deut. took place?
3.) I don’t like the idea at the end of the article from the link to take a modesty pledge and be assured of salvation. That’s not where the Church teaches salvation stems, pledges to a certain form of modesty.
Otherwise, my opinion would run toward Carol’s.
C
Celia
Guest
I was thinking the same thing…about Deut. and all. That article seemed a little off.
B
BlestOne
Guest
I have a confession to make. I agree that modesty is a virtue and as much as I try to dress modestly sometimes I err. One day I was cleaning my house in about the most grungy inappropriate clothes I owned, mostly because I was doing laundry. I was so thankful when I finished my chores a little bit earlier than anticipated, I decided I could just make it to mass if I hurried. Mind you, this was a weekday mass not Sunday, but I washed myself up and hurried off to church. About halfway through mass I looked down and realized I was wearing the most inappropriate shirt I had. It was given to me by someone I didn’t know and I would never have worn it had I had any other clothes to wear, even to clean…It was so bad and I was so embarrassed when I realized that I was at mass with a shirt that said “Crack Kills” with a Bart like character caught in a butt crack…I am not kidding! I was so embarrased I folded my shirt over during mass so you couldn’t see what it said or the picture on it. But here is the point…Would God rather I humbly thank him for a fruitful day of cleaning by going to mass or would he rather I not go to mass and not thank him? Or should have I parked my butt on a bar stool some where and celebrate that way? I think there are times when we have to give people the benefit of the doubt when making judements about their mode of attire.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
That was a very popular shirt in the midwest. I don’t wish to add to your embarassment, but I know exactly which one it was.
I think God honored your intention, particularly after all that cleaning. I think after Mass you might not have wanted to hoist yourself onto a bar stool, but would have been perfectly correct in going home and cracking the cork on a good cabernet…or smashing some stuff aorund for a margarita.
B
BlestOne
Guest
Wow…I got that shirt just after I moved to the midwest. A friend of a friend sort of thing…never knew it was popular. Guess that blows my uniqueness…waaa haaaa. Seriously, That had to be one of the most embarassing incidents of my life! I just sat there mortified, then to make it worse, when I got home my then 12 yo son looked at me and said, “You didn’t really go to mass did you? I know you didn’t because you would never wear that to CHurch.” Wow…now I am being told by a child how inappropriate I am…and my child at that!
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Be glad it wasn’t the one with the alligator that starts off, “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for…” and makes comment on one’s personal vice of anger and pride. Or the one with the plumber that is similar to the shirt of your embarassment.
As for the kid- He enjoyed it too much.
M
Morning_Glory
Guest
Everyone was responding to the original poster’s male/female clothing. But tell me poster, and those agreeing…do you curl, braid, or pull back your hair with barrettes, scrungies, fancy bobby pins or headbands? Do you dye your hair or have it highlighted? Do you wear wedding/engagement rings, watches, necklaces? What about earrings? Do you wear make-up, even lip gloss? How ornate are your Rosaries? Do you wear a gold or silver Crucifix?
If you looked through the accompanying link, all of the above mentioned would be included as being immodest and unfeminine.
Usually, when something starts with “Say this prayer so you better understand/Send this to 10 people and see what happens/If you love God, you will send this…” I skip it. Reading about modesty was truly eye opening, and I have realized that considering everything in the link, I will never be considered modest or feminine. I am not the Blessed Virgin Mary, and I never will be, but even in my immodesty and unfemininity I can send my prayers through her to her Son with my pearl rosary.
Maggie
If you looked through the accompanying link, all of the above mentioned would be included as being immodest and unfeminine.
Usually, when something starts with “Say this prayer so you better understand/Send this to 10 people and see what happens/If you love God, you will send this…” I skip it. Reading about modesty was truly eye opening, and I have realized that considering everything in the link, I will never be considered modest or feminine. I am not the Blessed Virgin Mary, and I never will be, but even in my immodesty and unfemininity I can send my prayers through her to her Son with my pearl rosary.
Maggie
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Morning Glory:
Some of it surely is in one’s heart.
If what we wear overtakes the focus on Our Lord, it is bad.
If what we wear is insignificant to our focus, that is good.
My youngest daughter has a string rosary with pink plastic beads. Outwardly, it is worth nothing, but it was touched to a piece of the true cross at the Relic Tour presented at the Detroit Cathedral. It is actually worth more than a Rosary made of diamonds and gold.
That is what we need to remember.
You are very wise.
Some of it surely is in one’s heart.
If what we wear overtakes the focus on Our Lord, it is bad.
If what we wear is insignificant to our focus, that is good.
My youngest daughter has a string rosary with pink plastic beads. Outwardly, it is worth nothing, but it was touched to a piece of the true cross at the Relic Tour presented at the Detroit Cathedral. It is actually worth more than a Rosary made of diamonds and gold.
That is what we need to remember.
E
Elphaba
Guest
BINGO!!! It isn’t rocket science to figure out that the cardinal was correct in noting the dangers of feminism as he saw it is his day, but he limits himself in identifying trousers as the cause [the Church in her wisdom saw beyond this limit, which is why the cardinal’s letter remained safely in the possession of the Church; that is, until the SSPX saw fit to unleash it to the public against the cardinal’s own wishes simply to fuel their own clothing agendas]. If only people would read the context of the cardinal’s letter (since it is now in the public realm) rather than the literal they might be able to finally get off their women-can’t-wear-pants soap boxes and tackle the real problems of the world - the destruction of motherhood by feminists. Besides, Pope St. Nicholas I said way back in the 9th century, “For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue.” So the issue of modest pants on women is an already settle debate. We need to move on and tackle the real problems of our day!
S
snow_white
Guest
Wow, this is such a controversial issue! I have a few things I would like to add…
But first, if anyone is really interested in this topic, there is a book that is completely dedicated to this particular subject. It’s called “Dressing with Dignity”.
Anyhoo…
I have done a lot of research on this particular subject, and it took me quite a while to finally admit that though pants are not bad, skirts are a far better option on a variety of levels.
I have three reasons coming from personal experience:
I am treated more like a lady when I wear a skirt. I have known from personal experience that wearing skirts greatly impacts the way men treat you. Once I started only wearing skirts, the gawking and harassing stopped. I backpacked through Europe this year for about a month, and not once was I harassed, and it was explained to me that European men treat a woman with a skirt with more respect. Men are more likely to open doors for you and act more gentlemenly.
Secondly, I act more like a lady when I wear a skirt. It forces me to sit properly and move around more gracefully. Also, and this is something I cannot really explain, but all I know is that it makes me feel more like a lady, and thus I act differently when wearing a skirt.
Finally, I firmly believe that a skirt (when worn properly) will always be the better option for modesty than wearing pants (no matter what they are). We need to remember men are visual, and thus the way we dress needs to be handled with more care than a man has to. Let us be honest, pants outline the leg and middle part of the body, leaving little room for mystery. Just ask a man (if you have the courage) wear his eyes go when a woman is wearing pants. I could go into more detail about this, but I’d write a book!
So, ultimately, it’s not necessarily wrong to wear pants, but if you want to be magnanimous, than choose the better option.
p.s. Someone asked what aesthetics was. Aesthetics is on the philosophy of beauty.
But first, if anyone is really interested in this topic, there is a book that is completely dedicated to this particular subject. It’s called “Dressing with Dignity”.
Anyhoo…
I have done a lot of research on this particular subject, and it took me quite a while to finally admit that though pants are not bad, skirts are a far better option on a variety of levels.
I have three reasons coming from personal experience:
I am treated more like a lady when I wear a skirt. I have known from personal experience that wearing skirts greatly impacts the way men treat you. Once I started only wearing skirts, the gawking and harassing stopped. I backpacked through Europe this year for about a month, and not once was I harassed, and it was explained to me that European men treat a woman with a skirt with more respect. Men are more likely to open doors for you and act more gentlemenly.
Secondly, I act more like a lady when I wear a skirt. It forces me to sit properly and move around more gracefully. Also, and this is something I cannot really explain, but all I know is that it makes me feel more like a lady, and thus I act differently when wearing a skirt.
Finally, I firmly believe that a skirt (when worn properly) will always be the better option for modesty than wearing pants (no matter what they are). We need to remember men are visual, and thus the way we dress needs to be handled with more care than a man has to. Let us be honest, pants outline the leg and middle part of the body, leaving little room for mystery. Just ask a man (if you have the courage) wear his eyes go when a woman is wearing pants. I could go into more detail about this, but I’d write a book!
So, ultimately, it’s not necessarily wrong to wear pants, but if you want to be magnanimous, than choose the better option.
p.s. Someone asked what aesthetics was. Aesthetics is on the philosophy of beauty.
C
CarolAnnSFO
Guest
In my experience, I haven’t noticed this, but that may be because cough, ahem, I’m a bit “older”. For better or worse, men completely ignore me – it doesn’t matter whether I’m dressed like Mary or like Joseph.
Maybe it’s because I am in no way graceful, regardless of what I’m wearing – I pretty much just clump along the same way, in a dress or in trousers.
And even if pants outline certain parts of the body, nobody ever sees those parts on me, since I tend to wear longish, loose tunic-y tops over them.
Oh well…
**Crazy Internet Junkies Society
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
- Status